Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

ANTONISH wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 9:04amThat would provide decades of work for a group of civil servants just to decide the process.
There's no need for a single process, and it shouldn't be centralised. But the principles are pretty obvious: talk to each other and then make appropriate decisions. Don't do nothing, don't leave it to the powerful, don't resolve it by mob action, don't go to law unless it's essential.

Jonathan
Mike Sales
Posts: 7882
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Mike Sales »

pwa wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 5:07am
Eric Gill's works have been problematic for a while now. To my eyes, they look stylish and attractive, but knowing the faults of their creator detracts greatly from their appeal. I used to enjoy Gill's work without exception, but now I just think what a pity it is that the works are tainted by the truth behind them.
I trust that the frequent use of Gill Sans typeface does not spoil your reading of many public notices!

https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/mti/gill-sans/

There is a difference between a statue of an individual which holds them up for our approval, and the work of an individual artist.
It is also possible to distinguish between an artist and their work.
Carravagio was a nasty man, but his pictures are greatly admired without this knowledge spoiling them, I think.
There are many artists whose private life is dubious, but their art works exist seperately, and can be appreciated for themselves.
Removing Carravagio's pictures from public view would not be popular, still less attacking them with a hammer.

To avoid unwarranted inferences perhaps I should say that I do not condone the crimes of Gill or Carravagio.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

The crux of this for me is that if somebody decides to "take the law into their own hands" to what extent is it OK for the jury to agree with their interpretation? The answer is that it's completely OK. And in every case: no picking and choosing.
Pebble
Posts: 1933
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Pebble »

Vorpal wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 12:08pm
Pebble wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 9:52am
I wasn't talking about different topics, one was black people being enslaved in modern day africa https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/2 ... ls-in-mali and the other was police shooting dead black people in Nigeria, these should be central to their cause but for some reason they're not?
Why should they be central to BLM's cause?

BLM arose to oppose police violence in the USA. While they have expanded somewhat into related areas of social & criminal justice, and other countries have picked up the movement, opposing modern slavery is not one of their goals, and there are other organisations working to oppose modern slavery. Maybe Nigeria has, or will start a BLM movement of their own, but asking British or American BLM protestors why they don't will not be taken as anything but whataboutism.
The toppling of the statue was at a BLM protest, the whole incident is reprted as BLM - the four have been referred to as BLM protesters by even the Gaurdian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... lston-four
It seems incredibly odd that they are so wound up about things that happened 400 years ago when it is still happening now. They only seem concerned about black lives when it can be connected to a white person, what is there real motive, reparation? Some in America are suggesting $150,000 for all african americans

reohn2 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 10:02am Isn't the jury a jury of their peers?
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.
I thought the whole idea of a jury was for the facts to be looked at by 12 members of the public who had no previous knowledge of the case. I appreciate in very high profile cases it will always be difficult to get a Jury of open minded people who have no previous knowledge, But considering the background of the Colston statue and how there had been decades of debate in Bristol about whether it should go or stay - I would have thought a fair trial could never have been heard in Bristol. May be in such high profile cases where it has been discussed at length on main stream TV and Radio that such a case should just be put in front a panel of Judges.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by reohn2 »

Pebble wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 10:51am
reohn2 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 10:02am Isn't the jury a jury of their peers?
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.
I thought the whole idea of a jury was for the facts to be looked at by 12 members of the public who had no previous knowledge of the case. I appreciate in very high profile cases it will always be difficult to get a Jury of open minded people who have no previous knowledge, But considering the background of the Colston statue and how there had been decades of debate in Bristol about whether it should go or stay - I would have thought a fair trial could never have been heard in Bristol. May be in such high profile cases where it has been discussed at length on main stream TV and Radio that such a case should just be put in front a panel of Judges.
With today's media satuation you'd find it hard to fijd people who hadn't heard of the Colston affair.I'll stick with what I posted earlier,that people from the area of Bristol would best serve on the jury and no don't think a panel of judges would be the better way to judge the case.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

Mike Sales wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 10:04amThere is a difference between a statue of an individual which holds them up for our approval, and the work of an individual artist.
Yes.

And there's a lot of options between "tearing them down" and leaving them up exactly as they are. Most of the options requiring discussion and understanding rather than preset positions.

Jonathan
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by pwa »

ANTONISH wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 8:40am
pwa wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 5:07am

Eric Gill's works have been problematic for a while now. To my eyes, they look stylish and attractive, but knowing the faults of their creator detracts greatly from their appeal. I used to enjoy Gill's work without exception, but now I just think what a pity it is that the works are tainted by the truth behind them.

The sensible thing to do, in the light of the Bristol events and concerns over other public statues, is to set up a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything, should be done with them. Wherever the statues are in the UK, and whatever the nature of the concerns. Nobody will get their own way all the time, but at least people will not feel their concerns are being ignored.
Where would it end?
There are numerous figures with problematic pasts.
Are we to destroy everything of merit because it's creator was something of a monster?
I can foresee a whole new industry of publicly funded witch finders.
What matters more? That we remove statues that cause widespread offence, or that we keep statues that cause widespread offence? Do we need statues in our lives so much that keeping problematic ones really matters? What percentage of your own happiness relies on the statues you pass each day? Personally, I hardly notice them. I certainly don't get much out of them and if they were all gone I'd stop noticing within a month. No statue is worth keeping if it causes widespread offence.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by pwa »

Mike Sales wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 10:04am
pwa wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 5:07am
Eric Gill's works have been problematic for a while now. To my eyes, they look stylish and attractive, but knowing the faults of their creator detracts greatly from their appeal. I used to enjoy Gill's work without exception, but now I just think what a pity it is that the works are tainted by the truth behind them.
I trust that the frequent use of Gill Sans typeface does not spoil your reading of many public notices!

https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/mti/gill-sans/

There is a difference between a statue of an individual which holds them up for our approval, and the work of an individual artist.
It is also possible to distinguish between an artist and their work.
Carravagio was a nasty man, but his pictures are greatly admired without this knowledge spoiling them, I think.
There are many artists whose private life is dubious, but their art works exist seperately, and can be appreciated for themselves.
Removing Carravagio's pictures from public view would not be popular, still less attacking them with a hammer.

To avoid unwarranted inferences perhaps I should say that I do not condone the crimes of Gill or Carravagio.
It is an old debate, whether the crimes of an artist affect appreciation of their works. Gill, for me, is certainly tainted and I don't spend much time drooling over his output. I have the background story in my head. I can live without the works of artists whose lives were not lived well. I really don't need them. I like the Gill statue in question at the Beeb, but I don't like it so much that I can set aside the artist's crimes. People who once walked past that on a regular basis included Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile, which is what I think of when I see it.

But back to the Bristol case, which is a prime example of emotions boiling over, and that is what we need to avoid. We need a reliable and trusted process for assessing and dealing with works in public spaces. I suggest that in public squares, works should only remain where they are if they if they are inoffensive to nearly everyone. We are talking about public spaces where people have to pass to go to the shops or on their way to work, so we should not be retaining things that make some people's lives less pleasant. It isn't worth it, just for a statue. The statue in Bristol did not bring people together, it divided them. That makes it a statue requiring a position more easily avoided.
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Tangled Metal »

Anyone think this obsession with statues ignores other objects of human construction that celebrates or at least commemorates slavery of African peoples? You used to be able to go on a walking tour in Liverpool, a city tied in with slavery business, and get shown the features linked with slavery. Things like carvings on buildings showing the black African as subhuman or subjugated I believe.

A statue in Bristol gets pulled down, others go after other statues of figures from times past for perceived issues but there's loads of buildings around the place with objectionable imagery and references completely ignored. BTW I'm thinking of discussions I read about the time of the Bristol statue where people proposed removal of a Baden-Powell statue commemorating the first scouting event but slavery connected art in Liverpool buildings get left alone.

I think with all this consistency is needed like I think third crank was saying. I think I perhaps agree with Jon about organised deliberations on such matters.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by pwa »

Tangled Metal wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 7:22am Anyone think this obsession with statues ignores other objects of human construction that celebrates or at least commemorates slavery of African peoples? You used to be able to go on a walking tour in Liverpool, a city tied in with slavery business, and get shown the features linked with slavery. Things like carvings on buildings showing the black African as subhuman or subjugated I believe.

A statue in Bristol gets pulled down, others go after other statues of figures from times past for perceived issues but there's loads of buildings around the place with objectionable imagery and references completely ignored. BTW I'm thinking of discussions I read about the time of the Bristol statue where people proposed removal of a Baden-Powell statue commemorating the first scouting event but slavery connected art in Liverpool buildings get left alone.

I think with all this consistency is needed like I think third crank was saying. I think I perhaps agree with Jon about organised deliberations on such matters.
It needs some thought. One sensible approach, especially where you have images embedded in a building, is to contextualise with information set alongside images, to give them an educational role.
ANTONISH
Posts: 2967
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 9:49am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by ANTONISH »

[quote=pwa
What matters more? That we remove statues that cause widespread offence, or that we keep statues that cause widespread offence? Do we need statues in our lives so much that keeping problematic ones really matters? What percentage of your own happiness relies on the statues you pass each day? Personally, I hardly notice them. I certainly don't get much out of them and if they were all gone I'd stop noticing within a month. No statue is worth keeping if it causes widespread offence.
[/quote]

"Personally I hardly notice them" - me too
I suspect that most people don't really take much notice of public monuments or are aware of their history.
Of course that doesn't fit with "widespread offence".
Just leave the things alone - most of the public probably have no strong feelings one way or the other.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
"Tangled Metal" wrote –

"wonder what is acceptable now that might be deemed totally unacceptable a few hundred years down the line,"

That's a good question.
I am three pages behind at the moment and catching up :(
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Vorpal »

Pebble wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 10:51am
The toppling of the statue was at a BLM protest, the whole incident is reprted as BLM - the four have been referred to as BLM protesters by even the Gaurdian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... lston-four
It seems incredibly odd that they are so wound up about things that happened 400 years ago when it is still happening now. They only seem concerned about black lives when it can be connected to a white person, what is there real motive, reparation? Some in America are suggesting $150,000 for all african americans
They aren't 'wound up about things that happened 400 years ago'. That was never the point of pulling that statue down.

The statue was seen as emblematic of ongoing discrimination and oppression in the UK today. Not just the person that statue was of, but that it made it seem as though the town revered a slaver; that despite years of campaigning folks couldn't get it taken down.

BLM are concerned with the discrimination and oppression that affect their members. Today.

Their real motive is to see changes made that improve lives and reduce inequality, but especially in the justice system, where Blacks and other people of colour are dispropotionately arrested, tried, and gaoled.

Reparations might be appropriate, but I don't think that they are as meaningful as real change.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Tangled Metal »

NATURAL ANKLING wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 10:52am Hi,
"Tangled Metal" wrote –

"wonder what is acceptable now that might be deemed totally unacceptable a few hundred years down the line,"

That's a good question.
I am three pages behind at the moment and catching up :(
I do that too. People who are up to date might forget what they said 3 or more pages back. I'd be interested to find out what you think we're doing now that's likely to be thought of as beyond acceptable in the future. I think one might be motor racing with ICE.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by pwa »

Vorpal wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 11:41am
Pebble wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 10:51am
The toppling of the statue was at a BLM protest, the whole incident is reprted as BLM - the four have been referred to as BLM protesters by even the Gaurdian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... lston-four
It seems incredibly odd that they are so wound up about things that happened 400 years ago when it is still happening now. They only seem concerned about black lives when it can be connected to a white person, what is there real motive, reparation? Some in America are suggesting $150,000 for all african americans
They aren't 'wound up about things that happened 400 years ago'. That was never the point of pulling that statue down.

The statue was seen as emblematic of ongoing discrimination and oppression in the UK today. Not just the person that statue was of, but that it made it seem as though the town revered a slaver; that despite years of campaigning folks couldn't get it taken down.

BLM are concerned with the discrimination and oppression that affect their members. Today.

Their real motive is to see changes made that improve lives and reduce inequality, but especially in the justice system, where Blacks and other people of colour are dispropotionately arrested, tried, and gaoled.

Reparations might be appropriate, but I don't think that they are as meaningful as real change.
Apologies and reparations relating to things done by folk who lived centuries ago are pointless. The people apologising are not in a position to apologise because they themselves are innocent, and they are apologising to folk who were not the victims. It gets more complicated and daft when you consider that many of us are mixed race, some without knowing it, so our ancestors were the villain and the victim. So do we apologise to ourselves for what one ancestor did to another? All we can do is improve the world we have, here and now, and not celebrate the worst aspects of the past by having the worst villains on pedestals in places of honour. No destruction is needed, just relocation to a museum and the addition of a new bit of prose to tell the story as we now know it. Job done.
Post Reply